Welcome back. Before Christmas, Keir Starmer had intended to use the initial days back after the holiday recess to highlight government efforts to bring down the living expenses. He outlined this case recently in a piece where he referenced steps including proposals to reduce utility costs. Unfortunately, Starmer’s cost of living media push has been blown out of the headlines by the former US president, and his entirely different approach to ensuring his voters get access to cheap energy.
No one in British political life appears very keen on embracing the American method – which is likely a positive development for other nations.
But there is a heated discussion ongoing about what the UK government should be willing to say about the American action to abduct the Venezuelan president, and install a successor with someone anticipated to be more cooperative with US demands, particularly in relation to the nation's petroleum sector.
Keir Starmer has refused to censure the American intervention, and the government has avoided questions about whether or not it viewed what happened as lawful. Recently, all EU states apart from Hungary issued a joint statement which, while not explicitly condemning, did stress the importance of international law, and by implication suggest Trump of disregarding it. It said:
EU members urge restraint and restraint by all parties, to avoid a worsening and to secure a peaceful solution to the crisis.
The Union recalls that, under all circumstances, the principles of the rules-based order and the United Nations charter must be upheld. Permanent members of the United Nations Security Council have a special duty to defend those principles, as a pillar of the international security architecture.
Mike Tapp, was conducting an interview round this morning and, when asked if Starmer was refusing to say the Venezuelan leader's removal broke global statutes because he was afraid of upsetting Trump, Tapp responded:
Absolutely not. The British government are and will remain in conversations with the Americans. And it’s for the Americans to lay out the juridical rationale for the steps that they’ve taken. And we’re also consulting with key partners examining the legal aspect of this.
But last night, in an interview on the BBC, Emily Thornberry (and a ex- shadow attorney general), said she was deeply worried about the way Trump seems to think, like the Russian leader and the Chinese president, that he could do what he wanted in his area of control.
Questioned about Starmer declining to say that Trump was in violation of global rules, Thornberry said, because the PM was in office, he had to weigh up “a number of considerations”. But she was in a different position because she was not a government member, she said. She added:
Ultimately there is no getting away from it. This is not a legal action.
The Prime Minister may well wish to hear what the reasoning is from the American government. I can get in front of everyone and say I cannot think of anything that could be a valid excuse.
Here is the agenda for the day.
10am: John Swinney, gives a address in Glasgow. The Scottish opposition leader, and Scottish Conservative leader, are also giving talks, at 10.30am and lunchtime in turn. All the leaders are looking ahead to the Scottish parliament vote in May.
Morning: The Prime Minister is on a visit in Berkshire where he is scheduled to make comments to the media.
11.30am: Downing Street holds a lobby briefing.
2.30pm: Shabana Mahmood, takes questions in the Commons.
After 3.30pm: The foreign secretary, is anticipated to give a statement to MPs about Venezuela.
